I've been a long-time fan of the Call of Duty series, though I was a little hesitant to try World at War. The developer, Treyarch, is generally considered to have produced the weaker titles in the Call of Duty series, though I played Call of Duty 3 and found it enjoyable enough to buy it. First thing's first: I enjoyed Call of Duty: World at War, and I think Treyarch did a pretty decent job with it. If this offends you, you may want to go back the way you came. Also, a stern word of warning for any parents: this game is NOT suitable for children. It contains very graphic violence and harsh language. Now I'm no censor, but I believe there are some things kids just don't need to see. This game is one of them.
I'll start with the good. World at War is built on the same technology as the critically-acclaimed Call of Duty 4. As a result, the graphics, gameplay and even the menus have the same shine that CoD4 has. The sets are beautiful and I actually found myself wishing I could visit the castle near the end of the American campaign, were it not being blown to pieces.
The action is, in a word, intense. I have played every other Call of Duty game and I have yet to see a scene (in the WW2 games anyway) as intense as the one I experienced while storming the Reichstadt. I stormed it back in the original CoD, but it sure didn't look anything like it did in WaW; there were enemies swarming out the doors, artillery to blow up, a maze of barricades to work through...it was something else. Speaking of intensity, I've got to say one of my favorite levels was the Black Cats mission. You take the role of Locke: a gunner on a PBY Catalina on duty in the Pacific. You come across a merchant fleet en route to Okinawa and decide to attack. The Catalina has four gun turrets and only two gunners. Not only do you have to shoot down enemy planes, PT boats and fill the cargo ships full of holes, you have to do it while running between four different turrets. The game handles this for you (you press X to change at appointed times. If you don't press it, the games moves you automatically) and this level was just FUN.
While WaW may have returned to the well-tread scenario of World War 2, I did appreciate that they took it to the Pacific. Most WW2 games deal solely with the war in Europe. There is a flipside to this coin though (more on that in a minute.)
Being a weapons man, I enjoyed World at War for two reasons: the M-2 flame thrower and deployable machine guns. CoD3 and CoD4 had these, but in different ways. CoD3 had a portable MG-34 that was horribly inaccurate and only found once or twice. CoD4 has modern machine guns like the Russian PKM and the American M-249. Both act as big assault rifles. WaW gives us a whole new category of weapon. You can get a U.S. Browning .30 cal, an MG-42 and a couple others. They can either be set up as you'd normally see them, or used at the hip to great effect. I doubt I experienced much that was more satisfying than playing the final American mission with a machine gun in my hands.
Some have said that the flamethrower is overpowered. I won't argue, as I agree. It kills instantly and never runs out of ammo. The only limiting factor is that sustained usage will cause it to overheat, initiating a few seconds of cooldown that is easily negated by switching weapons. But really, how long have we been waiting to douse a bunker with purging flame in a Call of Duty game? While I'd say the flamethrower mechanics still need some tweeking, it's still nice to see a new weapon on the block.
The enemies have learned a few tricks too. I can't tell you how many times I got skewerd by banzai bayonet charges or got surprised by enemies coming out of spider holes. Making the enemy more dangerous, even on lower levels, goes a long way toward making a more enjoyable game. While the flamethrower usually takes care of them, it can work against you as well. Almost as numerous as the times I got skewerd by a banzai charge were the times I lit myself on fire by attempting to torch charging enemies. Using flamethrower at point blank range = dead grunt.
The last thing I would like to applaud Treyarch for is their transitions between levels. While they did include graphic images of atrocities and things people generally do not like to see (more on this later) the layout of the cutscenes and the graphics in general look like a jazzed-up version of a history channel special. Nicely done!
The good news is that I believe this was a fun game, a worthy entry to the Call of Duty series and a good blast in the multiplayer/co-op department. Is it worth buying? Maybe, if you like shooters, the Call of Duty series or the history channe and are not easily offended. Now for the bad.
Anyone who thinks the Call of Duty series has grown stale with World War 2 would do well to steer clear of World at War. Many of the scenes visited, particularly in the Russian campaign, are nothing new. Though they may look different, we've stormed the Reichstadt before. Also, fans of the movie "Enemy at the Gates" will either love or hate the intro to the Russian campaign. It's almost an exact recreation of when Vasilli Zaitsev meets Danilov. Not that it isn't fun or that we haven't seen Enemy at the Gates in a CoD game before (let's not forget your crossing the Volga in the original CoD; right out of Enemy at the Gates, even down to where you get handed the bullets instead of the rifle. I know, I know: that actually happened, wheras the scene in the fountain...I know. But it was still laid out almost exactly like the movie.) The good news for this scene is that immediately after it, you and your new friend go on a cool chase through a burning building. Nothing like a little fire to liven up a cold winter.
While the trip to the Pacific in WaW has done something for spicing things up, there is still more to be had. Let's not forget that World War 2 was fought in quite a few places besides the Pacific, France, Germany, North Africa and Stalingrad. What about China, Italy, Sicily, Czechoslovakia? Plenty of other nations have WW2 stories to tell. While you could make the argument that such places and stories are not well-known enough to make a game about, I would suggest that this implies something more about the ignorance of the American public (and if I may be so bold, speaks a little to the American educational system. Yes, that's right. I went there.)
Take CoD3. You spend most of the British campaign working with the French resistance. Why not do something along those lines again? You can keep it as the American or British campaign, just give us a taste of another country's struggle that we might not know so much about. Heaven forbid a mainstream video game should be educational in any way.
Finally, I would like to speak a little about the graphic nature of the game. Very few would dispute that World at War brings to light a bit more violence and graphic imagery than previous games. Shooting someone produces a lot more blood (and possibly a missing limb) than it ever has. While it may be more true-to-life than one would expect, it's not the kind of thing we're used to seeing in a Call of Duty game. World at War also contains graphic/offensive images of actual footage from WW2 of piles of bodies, hangings and other unpleasantness. There is also the distinct presence of, shall we say "coarse language." Now don't get me wrong: I am not squeemish, I don't mind swearing and I personally am not offended by war footage. I am of the opinion that war is a dirty business. World at War, in my opinion, brings the user closer to actual war than any other game in the series. Some argue that the manner in which it is done is inappropriate; that the game does not handle graphic imagery with a sense of reverence and is using said images purely for shock value.
While I would agree that the imagery was not handled in the most appropriate manner possible, I don't think it was placed there purely for grotesque shock value. I believe that the designers wanted to impart a greater sense of what it was like to participate in the events portrayed in the game. Exposing the player to the graphic images one would've witnessed in real life had they been there to see the event is part of the experience.
I am of the opinion that nobody is trying to shove games down your throat. If a game offends you, don't play it. If a tv show offends you, don't watch it. World at War shows you what it was like to be in World War 2, in all the gory details. If you don't want that, don't play the game. It's that simple. If you can get past the mess that is war, you will find an enjoyable (if short) companion to the WW2 entries in the Call of Duty series.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
New Header
As you might have noticed, things look a little different. The photo is my workspace, in the spare room of my apartment. Should you have any questions about the esoterica surrounding my workspace, their significance, their purpose or even just what the hell it all is, feel free to ask.
As for the heading "everyone needs a muse", that is the tagline of my screenplay "Muse" (formerly known as "Beautiful Mediocrity" for anyone who happened to read it.)
As for the rest of the formatting change, it was mainly due to making the new header work. I like the new header, but it looked terrible with the old layout and I don't know enough html to make it look right, so there it is.
As for the heading "everyone needs a muse", that is the tagline of my screenplay "Muse" (formerly known as "Beautiful Mediocrity" for anyone who happened to read it.)
As for the rest of the formatting change, it was mainly due to making the new header work. I like the new header, but it looked terrible with the old layout and I don't know enough html to make it look right, so there it is.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Tips for Successful Freelancing #8: Time Invested
There is a quick and easy way to tell whether a gig is worth it or not. Keep a record of how much time you spend at the gig in a given week (let's call this H for Hours.) Divide your monthly paycheck by 4 to find out how much you make in a week (let's say W for Weekly Salary.) Now do the same for your day job (if you're on salary. If you're not, just use your hourly wage. We will call this D for Day Job Wage)
If W/H is ≥ D, then your gig is worth the effort. If W/H <>
If W/H is ≥ D, then your gig is worth the effort. If W/H <>
Concerning Internet Startups
A lot of the gigs you are likely to come across while freelancing involve internet startups. These are businesses (typically websites) that people create and happen to have a need for a writer that they cannot fill. While I have nothing against internet startups (indeed, I had a lot of fun working for one), there are risks involved in working for a startup that you should know before you sign on.
Keep your backups handy. Like all startup businesses, internet startups are subject to unforseen/unplanned for difficulties. A large percentage of businesses (around 80%, give or take) fail within their first year. Why? Most simply don't plan for every contingency or don't think far enough ahead. They don't sell well enough or they don't produce enough, their loans get called in and they're out of the game.
When you sign on to work for a startup, you are essentially becoming part of that business. If it fails, so do you. This happened to me about a year and a half ago. I signed on to write World of Warcraft news articles for the now-defunct Azeroth World News (azerothwn.com). It seemed to be going well for a couple months, but then my editor mentioned budget problems. My workload would need to be reduced, but I could still get paid for a couple articles a month. The next month, they were gone. Funding for the project dried up, and that was that.
The lesson here is that if you sign on to work with a startup (and most will say they are startups; if they don't mention it, ask whoever you're working for how long they've been around. Think of it as a job interview question) you run the risk of them closing down. That is why, once again, I heartily encourage you to keep your day job. Even if it runs you a little ragged, give it some time. If six months go by and your startup gig sees improvement, then maybe you can think about ditching your day job. Don't rest on your laurels just because you got a new gig; it may not last.
The other warning I give concerning startups is with payment. Many of the people running the business have never run one before and are unfamiliar with payroll procedures. Don't expect your paycheck to arrive at the same time each month. As with businesses with their heads up their asses, startups also have a bit of trouble with how much to pay freelancers. Many of them are poorly-funded (or not funded at all) and as such, cannot afford to pay you a lot. Unless you REALLY need the work at the rate they're offering, you have a friend at the company or you need a resume builder, you may want to pass on a low-paying startup job. While it may be mutually beneficial and it *could* turn into something better down the line (that's a favorite of startups. beware anyone who says this), it doesn't mean it will.
Don't get me wrong: startups need employees, they need writers. Just be careful is all. Make sure the startup can afford to pay a decent wage and that they've got a sound idea. A lot of startups fail because they are simply bad ideas. That's the hard and honest truth. You shouldn't have to suffer because of someone else's lack of planning or foresight.
Keep your backups handy. Like all startup businesses, internet startups are subject to unforseen/unplanned for difficulties. A large percentage of businesses (around 80%, give or take) fail within their first year. Why? Most simply don't plan for every contingency or don't think far enough ahead. They don't sell well enough or they don't produce enough, their loans get called in and they're out of the game.
When you sign on to work for a startup, you are essentially becoming part of that business. If it fails, so do you. This happened to me about a year and a half ago. I signed on to write World of Warcraft news articles for the now-defunct Azeroth World News (azerothwn.com). It seemed to be going well for a couple months, but then my editor mentioned budget problems. My workload would need to be reduced, but I could still get paid for a couple articles a month. The next month, they were gone. Funding for the project dried up, and that was that.
The lesson here is that if you sign on to work with a startup (and most will say they are startups; if they don't mention it, ask whoever you're working for how long they've been around. Think of it as a job interview question) you run the risk of them closing down. That is why, once again, I heartily encourage you to keep your day job. Even if it runs you a little ragged, give it some time. If six months go by and your startup gig sees improvement, then maybe you can think about ditching your day job. Don't rest on your laurels just because you got a new gig; it may not last.
The other warning I give concerning startups is with payment. Many of the people running the business have never run one before and are unfamiliar with payroll procedures. Don't expect your paycheck to arrive at the same time each month. As with businesses with their heads up their asses, startups also have a bit of trouble with how much to pay freelancers. Many of them are poorly-funded (or not funded at all) and as such, cannot afford to pay you a lot. Unless you REALLY need the work at the rate they're offering, you have a friend at the company or you need a resume builder, you may want to pass on a low-paying startup job. While it may be mutually beneficial and it *could* turn into something better down the line (that's a favorite of startups. beware anyone who says this), it doesn't mean it will.
Don't get me wrong: startups need employees, they need writers. Just be careful is all. Make sure the startup can afford to pay a decent wage and that they've got a sound idea. A lot of startups fail because they are simply bad ideas. That's the hard and honest truth. You shouldn't have to suffer because of someone else's lack of planning or foresight.
Weathering the Storm
Now is not the greatest time to be a job seeker. With the economy in the shitter, companies are slashing budgets, laying people off and making life generally all-round miserable for the people who still have jobs. For those of us who are short on work, this is an especially hard time. Employers have the luxury of asking the world of perspective employees, while offering little in return. And if you don't want that shit job that's way beneath you and your abilities, the person in line behind you does.
In these times, it is important to remember that, as a freelance writer, you can't rely on what you have. There are a few freelancers out there who, I'm sure, are swooping in and grabbing clients left and right. I'm also willing to bet that the people doing this are going to be run ragged by overwork and will still find themselves struggling to pay the bills.
Remember how I said a while back that you shouldn't quit your day job? That is especially true when the economy is in the dumps. Having something to fall back on in case your clients bail on you is absolutely essential. Let me put it this way: it's much better to fall and have a parachute than to fall and need to find one before you hit the ground. Remember, being a part-time freelancer does not make you any less of a writer. Most of us need to have something else in the "regular" world in order to keep things steady or in times like these, to keep us afloat.
Again, when times get desperate, you will be tempted to work for that .75 cents a word. I say again (and please listen if you didn't before) DO NOT TAKE THESE JOBS! The people offering them do not know what to pay a writer and are just looking for cheap content! You will do more work for less pay and will wind up wishing you'd spent your time either at a halfway decent day job or looking for a better job. Don't give in!
It's a hard time right now. Everyone except the rich is struggling (but honestly, when do the rich ever suffer?) and decent gigs are hard to come by. All I can say is: keep your head above water. Sooner or later, the flood will recede.
In these times, it is important to remember that, as a freelance writer, you can't rely on what you have. There are a few freelancers out there who, I'm sure, are swooping in and grabbing clients left and right. I'm also willing to bet that the people doing this are going to be run ragged by overwork and will still find themselves struggling to pay the bills.
Remember how I said a while back that you shouldn't quit your day job? That is especially true when the economy is in the dumps. Having something to fall back on in case your clients bail on you is absolutely essential. Let me put it this way: it's much better to fall and have a parachute than to fall and need to find one before you hit the ground. Remember, being a part-time freelancer does not make you any less of a writer. Most of us need to have something else in the "regular" world in order to keep things steady or in times like these, to keep us afloat.
Again, when times get desperate, you will be tempted to work for that .75 cents a word. I say again (and please listen if you didn't before) DO NOT TAKE THESE JOBS! The people offering them do not know what to pay a writer and are just looking for cheap content! You will do more work for less pay and will wind up wishing you'd spent your time either at a halfway decent day job or looking for a better job. Don't give in!
It's a hard time right now. Everyone except the rich is struggling (but honestly, when do the rich ever suffer?) and decent gigs are hard to come by. All I can say is: keep your head above water. Sooner or later, the flood will recede.
Review: Fable 2
Like so many games to come out in recent months, Fable 2 has been a very highly anticipated title for me. I played the first Fable repeatedly. I know where all the Silver Keys are, how to get all of the Legendary Weapons, and how to open every demon door. When Jack of Blades turned into a dragon, I schooled him something fierce. I bought an original Xbox expressly for the purpose of playing Fable.
Now it's successor has come along. Honestly: I love it. Despite widespread complaints of bugs, I have encountered very few so far, and none of which have crashed my game or forced me to start again (thankfully.) There's not much about Fable 2 that I don't like. It is an improvement on the original in nearly every way. The only things that annoy me are:
-You can't lose weight by running around; you can only lose weight by eating celery.
-You can't bind equipment or oft-used expressions to the D-pad anymore.
-Merchants usually only have one or two of something in stock. Previously, you could find dozens of potions or food items at the same vendor.
What's improved about Fable 2? The interface (you get a dog instead of a minimap. How fun! Also, for those of you who don't like the dog, you can chose to get rid of it at the end) the graphics are amazing, as was expected, the story was epic, though not quite as epic as the first, and the new hero goodies really make things shine. You can play female characters, own castles and you dye your clothing to change colors! Thankfully, villagers don't freak out if you walk around in black clothing (bonus to the goths out there, plus you get an achievement for wearing all black.)
Like the first Fable, the main storyline is quite short; if you play through nothing but that, you can probably finish in under 10 hours. The good news is that the stuff in between the story (owning property, sidequests, jobs and the like) is much better and is almost as fun as the main story. You can take gigs as a blacksmith, a bartender, a kidnapper ('Citizen Displacement' they call it) or a woodcutter to earn extra cash. You can own just about everything in the game (though you can't buy dungeons) including the castle the big bad guy lives in.
Bottom line: if you like a good RPG and/or you liked the original Fable, check this out! If you didn't like Fable or don't care for RPGs, get something else.
Now it's successor has come along. Honestly: I love it. Despite widespread complaints of bugs, I have encountered very few so far, and none of which have crashed my game or forced me to start again (thankfully.) There's not much about Fable 2 that I don't like. It is an improvement on the original in nearly every way. The only things that annoy me are:
-You can't lose weight by running around; you can only lose weight by eating celery.
-You can't bind equipment or oft-used expressions to the D-pad anymore.
-Merchants usually only have one or two of something in stock. Previously, you could find dozens of potions or food items at the same vendor.
What's improved about Fable 2? The interface (you get a dog instead of a minimap. How fun! Also, for those of you who don't like the dog, you can chose to get rid of it at the end) the graphics are amazing, as was expected, the story was epic, though not quite as epic as the first, and the new hero goodies really make things shine. You can play female characters, own castles and you dye your clothing to change colors! Thankfully, villagers don't freak out if you walk around in black clothing (bonus to the goths out there, plus you get an achievement for wearing all black.)
Like the first Fable, the main storyline is quite short; if you play through nothing but that, you can probably finish in under 10 hours. The good news is that the stuff in between the story (owning property, sidequests, jobs and the like) is much better and is almost as fun as the main story. You can take gigs as a blacksmith, a bartender, a kidnapper ('Citizen Displacement' they call it) or a woodcutter to earn extra cash. You can own just about everything in the game (though you can't buy dungeons) including the castle the big bad guy lives in.
Bottom line: if you like a good RPG and/or you liked the original Fable, check this out! If you didn't like Fable or don't care for RPGs, get something else.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)